ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Dis86 said:
Lol, didn't think you'd have an answer to that. Shill status: CONFIRMED
Click to expand...

yawn. You have a different opinion to me? Must be a shill.

My answer has been consistent though out, no war with a state that poses no threat to us. As soon as you prosecute war based on 'morality' and nothing else you lose because our government is as immoral as any other and is more than tolerant of immoral governments in other countries when there is something to be gained. You have to wrap yourself up in knots, as you have done, to be able to justify your beliefs and to justify military action while dismissing your own countries use of immoral actions and lies.

It's bloodthirsty perpetuation of the military industrial complex.
 
vincent1989 said:
yawn. You have a different opinion to me? Must be a shill.

My answer has been consistent though out, no war with a state that poses no threat to us. As soon as you prosecute war based on 'morality' you lose because our government is as immoral as any other. You have to wrap yourself up in knots, as you have done, to be able to justify your beliefs and to justify military action while dismissing your own countries use of immoral actions and lies.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered.
 
Dis86 said:
You haven't answered.
Click to expand...

Because any answer I gave would be irrelevant in the context of the conversation which is whether or not Assad has used chemical weapons and weather or not that is justification for war.

When people are put under intense pressure in circumstances such as 'peaceful' protests which are seldom peaceful and certainly weren't during the Arab spring, the same peaceful protests that have brought misery to millions in the middle east, It's probably acceptable for a sovereign country to act in it's best interests and in the best interests of the majority of the population who aren't rioting. The reason this doesn't happen over here is because we no longer routinely have the army parading the streets and our police are predominantly unarmed. The culture in the middle east is however incredibly different and trying to judge those people though the eyes of the West is what has caused us countless problems in the other countries in which we've intervened.

Is it right for Assad's government to have shot and killed a handful of protesters? Probably not, but is it justification for external interference? Equally probably not. It's very easy to view your own interests and actions as having shades of grey and seeing the interests and actions of others as only black and white. Unfortunately doing so makes us all worse off. You should apply the same level of tolerance and justification you apply to your own interests to the interests of others, you may find more nuance in the world.

In my first post in here (I think it was my first, certainly in the first 2-3) I said that If Assad is guilty of gassing civilians then we should do something. I just have a standard of proof that I feel is necessary to be fulfilled, and maybe our government feels they have that proof but when independent investigators haven't been even given the chance to do investigations and who have previously concluded that rebels have been guilty of a number of previous chlorine attacks I think it's rational to remain skeptical and to ask questions. Only a fool delegates all authority to someone else. I'm old enough to remember the evidence we were given to justify the Iraq war and I remember being in favour of it at the time, how foolish did I feel as it all started to unravel and led to Islamic State and the proliferation of hate for the West in the region. I'm cautious of falling for the same trick twice and I don't think that's unjustifiable.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Moses said:
You appear to be spacking out and mixing up lots of different issues rather than staying on point. Perhaps step back, take a deep breath, and come back when you’re less emotional?
Click to expand...

I'm not being emotional, I'm being rational. The world we live in is more than a single line plotted from A-B, it is complex and entangled mesh and we get ourselves tangled up in knots when we try to pretend it is anything other than that. My argument is 'how can we use morality as a justification for our attack when we undertake immoral actions ourselves.
 
I'm fine with the notion of attacking Assad. The use of chemical weapons in a civil war should appal us all. However, just because something should be done does not mean this is it. Yes, these strikes will Assad's ability to fight his own people, but it'll also prolong the war. We've got no plans to actually stop the war, so what reason is there to believe these attacks will actually reduce suffering and death in the longer term.
 
Mr Jack said:
I'm fine with the notion of attacking Assad. The use of chemical weapons in a civil war should appal us all. However, just because something should be done does not mean this is it. Yes, these strikes will Assad's ability to fight his own people, but it'll also prolong the war. We've got no plans to actually stop the war, so what reason is there to believe these attacks will actually reduce suffering and death in the longer term.
Click to expand...
@Vincent1890 said he was old enough to remember the evidence given for the justification for the Iraq war and feeling he was duped. Well I'm old enough to remember the conflicts in the Balkans and as far as I could see military intervention was an effective means of bringing about a positive outcome.

I'm all for air strikes just so long as it's used as a means to bring about a diplomatic solution and stops further conflict.
 
Freddie1980 said:
@Vincent1890 said he was old enough to remember the evidence given for the justification for the Iraq war and feeling he was duped. Well I'm old enough to remember the conflicts in the Balkans and as far as I could see military intervention was an effective means of bringing about a positive outcome.

I'm all for air strikes just so long as it's used as a means to bring about a diplomatic solution and stops further conflict.
Click to expand...

That's because the Balkans were important for NATO. Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq and so forth are not, they are just battlefields filled with inconvenient populations.

We know for a fact that Libya was a terrible outcome, it directly enhanced if not entirely caused the migration crisis, i'm sure the right-wing movement in Europe thinks wars are a good thing for their image.
 
These stop the war idiots are morons. They'll protest at anything. Bunch of useless hippies.

Protesting on Monday outside parliament.

They need to be sent to Assad for a nice little holiday, they will then see why force needs to be used.

Strikes should have destroyed all his air force and surveillance systems. Didn't go anywhere near far enough. Lack of moral courage to go any further.
 
RaohNS said:
Of course. The British has done exactly the same thing also and continue to do so. Following my departure from MSM 4years ago you realize how pernicious and clever the BBC for example operates. I.e. It will have more people on a panel pro their agenda.

You do realize if that was the case they have the perfect template to copy in the way the British do their manipulation.

Again, no different than the UK. Perfect example: Skripal case, how many times has the story and narrative changed? Buffoon Boris is doing a sterling job as is the BBC and Sky and the tabloid press.

From the UK press too, but the UK press has been far more diverse eg they are critically ill, they should allow them to die with dignity, oh look she's walking around and is fine. A nerve agent that is 10x more potent than VX, designed to kill instantly and somehow it takes 5hrs to take effect.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with your thinking, is that you've failed to take into account the differences between how each different regime (west vs east) behaves, and the practical differences that creates. According to your position, the UK is playing pretty much the same game as Russia, so therefore we're just as bad. (misinformation, conspiracies, etc)

The problem with that, especially in your reference to the issues in Sailsbury and the apparent change of stories - if your argument is played back to you, it turns into a conspiracy theory - at which point that implies that the UK government are actively creating and sustaining conspiracies, in order to achieve tactical objectives, which is highly problematic.

My personal view, is that this all falls down immediately - because the UK doesn't have sufficient skill, or power over it's people to pull off. In order to pull of a conspiracy - it requires heaps of power, because if anyone blabs or leaks (which has never been easier to do in this day and age) the whole thing comes crashing down. If I knew of a UK government conspiracy - I'd have no hesitation in going to every tabloid and leaking it immediately for cash whilst laughing - because nothing will happen to me. However - I wouldn't even dare think it, if I was Russian and knew of a similar scenario - because I'd be killed, which for me highlights the majors differences.

Russia has enough power over it's people, that it's able to just say and do what it likes, anyone who opposes it gets killed, anyone who disagrees with it gets killed, so they can act with far more impunity than our politicians. In the UK you have stacks of media organisations, hot-shot freelance reporters at every level who are champing at the bit to get the latest story to leak to everyone without any repercussions.

Our politicians make far too many stupid mistakes, you mention Boris Johnson - there isn't a person in the world more incapable of ******* up a conspiracy, remember that time he went on the TV to make a statement, to try and save that women in Iran from Prison? Remember how he slipped up on TV and basically condemned her to rot in jail, by telling the exact opposite of what her, her lawyers, her family and the evidence was saying, because he's a total berk.
 
B&W said:
Well sir I did try when I was a younger man, I was refused due to my asthma.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...

Why should that stop you now, plenty of Merc jobs in Syria, you could even join the Kurds and get blown up by the Turkish for literally no reason. /making some commentary here, not actually trying to be this mean.

Screeeech said:
SNIP
Click to expand...

So when Snowden released all that information, he was doing a good job or a bad one? If we are serious about checks to fascism in the West, then Snowden wouldn't currently be hunted would he.
(To be fair though, he probably actively helped Russia, but it could have just been convenient for them, it's irrelevant though)

There can be no exceptions.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
Why should that stop you now, plenty of Merc jobs in Syria, you could even join the Kurds and get blown up by the Turkish for literally no reason. /making some commentary here, not actually trying to be this mean.
Click to expand...

Fighting is for duty, honour, etc. Mercenary work is like business....
 
StriderX said:
So when Snowden released all that information, he was doing a good job or a bad one? If we are serious about checks to fascism in the West, then Snowden wouldn't currently be hunted would he.
(To be fair though, he probably actively helped Russia, but it could have just been convenient for them, it's irrelevant though)
Click to expand...

He leaked classified NSA documentation, state secrets and god knows what - there's a gulf of difference between leaking state secrets and information on the sensitive internal workings of day to day government secrets.

For example, if that skripal thing turned out to be a conspiracy theory and the information was leaked, the government would get totally wrecked and rightly so, but that's nothing like the sort of thing that Snowden leaked, he was asking for it.
 
Blood and urine samples from the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria have tested positive for chlorine gas and a nerve agent, according to U.S. officials.

MSNBC reported Thursday that the U.S. obtained samples from the attack site in Douma, a suburb of Damascus, and determined that they contained traces of chlorine gas and an unidentified nerve agent. While officials did not identify the nerve agent as sarin, the Syrian government is believed to have used the deadly chemical weapon a number of times during the country's seven-year civil war.

U.S. officials are confident the Syrian government was behind the attack in Douma over the weekend that left dozens of people dead, MSNBC reported.
Click to expand...

(Source).
 
vincent1989 said:
Is it acceptable for the UK government to extrajudicially murder, by drone strike, it's own citizens who take up the cause of an enemy when they pose no direct threat to the government or the people of the UK?

If the answer is yes then you must also accept that the Syrian government is also justified in the extrajudicial killing of it's own citizens who side with a cause that is contrary to the will of the people that the government is bound to protect.

The west's near ceaseless meddling for decades led these countries to this point because it served our interests. You can not seek to other throw governments of other countries and expect them not to act, The Arab Spring, which is where this conflict originated, has left a swath of countries significantly worse off than they were before and that is what was also attempted in Syria. If there were forces acting in this country to destabilise this country you can bet our government would be acting to preserve the status quo for the majority of the population. The government were not above charging down, on horse back like some medieval cavalry, and beating 'peacefully' striking miners at Orgreave because they threatened the stability of this country. Our government is not above testing biological agents, whose affects they aren't certain of, on thousands of unsuspecting, unknowing British civilians. Heaven forbid a foreign power had decided to remove the UK government for those acts. But all this is justifiable by you because as humans we love nothing more than to believe we are right, we are good, we are the arbiters of justice, never mind turning a blind eye to anything that might make us appear just as culpable.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Click to expand...
So you won't answer the question then? Instead you will carry on with a bunch of hyperbole.
 
Mr Jack said:
I'm fine with the notion of attacking Assad. The use of chemical weapons in a civil war should appal us all. However, just because something should be done does not mean this is it. Yes, these strikes will Assad's ability to fight his own people, but it'll also prolong the war. We've got no plans to actually stop the war, so what reason is there to believe these attacks will actually reduce suffering and death in the longer term.
Click to expand...

None whatsoever, its just that Gas attacks are stepping over a line as far as the West goes. Its fine if millions die in regular bombing but gas, thats a no-no.

Everything our governments do is viewed through the prism of WWI and WWII. There was a particular horror of gas after WWI and not even the Nazi's used it on the battlefield in WWII. Everytime we go in to topple a dictator its because they're seen as another Hitler completely forgetting or plain ignoring the fact that what occurred in western europe in the 20th century has little to no relevence to current day middle east politics. They really aren't going to just fall into a liberal democracy like post war Germany.

We've sort of learned our lesson as far as interfering in the middle east goes as politicians remember afghanistan and iraq for now that we're not prepared to commit to putting boots on the ground, but limited bomb-and-run attacks are still on the table to massage politicians sense of moral outrage, completely ignoring all the regular suffering that goes on obviously.
 
Last edited:
There has been much talk amongst the pundits about whether or not Theresa May has the authority to attack Syria without Parliamentary approval. The answer is actually 'Yes, she does.'

From a legal perspective, May is on firm ground. The authority to deploy the armed forces is derived from a set of powers known as the royal prerogative.Once exercised personally by monarchs, much of the prerogative has now in practice come under the control of ministers, and in particular the prime minister. The prerogative is not generally subject to direct parliamentary control.

There is no obligation, under law, for a government to obtain the express consent of parliament for military action. For instance, the UK entered World War II in 1939 without specific parliamentary authorisation in advance.
Click to expand...

(Source).

For the record, I am opposed to these Western attacks on Syria, regardless of their legality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom